Nikon-mount Telephotos

[astroNikon]

But is the 80-400 VR a good solution for high speed sports?
that is one reason I opted not to get it, it was slow to focus.
Trying to shoot fast Formula1 cars requires a fast AutoFocus, which from what I recall was one of it's weak points. But I never tested it, only read online reviews.

Are you talking about the AF-S version of the older one? The AF-S should be very good; seems like Thom Hogan has been shooting wildlife very successfully with it.

I don't recall. It's been quite some time when I looked into it.
But I love the 80mm when I use my 80-200/2.8
When I use my 150-600 ... I really need 80mm in sports - if anything at least on a field (football, soccer, etc).
myself, I might look at the 80-400 again.
I was thinking of trying the 28-300 (FullFrame lens) just to see what it could do too.

 

[Braineack]

The 80-400 is pretty big and heavy (3.5lbs | 8"), nearly as big as the 150-600mm (4.3lbs | 10").

it's much slower AF compared to the 70-300 which is light and nimble (1.6lbs. | 5.6") and won't be such a chore to carry around all day. However, It will be sharper from 300-400mm.

A good copy of a 70-300 VR can be had for under $300. A 80-400mm will cost somewhere in the $800 range.


the 300 f/4 matters little for aperture, it's about ultimate IQ. It's only 5.8in long and weights 1.7lbs. IT should outperform both lens at 300mm is all regards.

 

[gckless]

The 80-400 is pretty big and heavy (3.5lbs | 8"), nearly as big as the 150-600mm (4.3lbs | 10").

it's much slower AF compared to the 70-300 which is light and nimble (1.6lbs. | 5.6") and won't be such a chore to carry around all day. However, It will be sharper from 300-400mm.

A good copy of a 70-300 VR can be had for under $300. A 80-400mm will cost somewhere in the $800 range.


the 300 f/4 matters little for aperture, it's about ultimate IQ. It's only 5.8in long and weights 1.7lbs. IT should outperform both lens at 300mm is all regards.

Weight will not be an issue. I won't be carrying it all day, as I won't have that much time (I'm actually going to be flag marshaling, and just going to break away for a shift), and I will also have a monopod. Price isn't really an issue here either, I will be renting. But the point about the AF is worth noting.

 

[Derrel]

I would rent the new 80-400 AF-S lens for the focusing speed it has, and the focal length range. The "old" 80-400 AF-D is a lens I have owned since it came out, and it is a slow, unreliable, erratic focuser much of the time. But from what I've read and seen from Thom Hogan, the new 80-400 AF-S is actually a VERY solid lens in optics, and in focusing, and he says it's very reliable for birds/nature, so, definitely it is a huge advance over the old, screw-driven focusing lens. I have a 70-300 VR-G...it's mostly okay, but it suffers from unreliable focusing; it misses, and FAILS to initiate focus quite often whenever distance changes are significant between the last focused distance and a new target at a different range; that is a well-known issue with the 70-300 VR,and has been mentioned here by me, and by two other TPFers, as well as being in the Hogan and Rockwell reviews...it's a well-known quirk/flaw/issue that the 70-300 VR-G suffers from. It doesn't always do this, but it does this often enough that you WILL miss shots because the damned lens will not initiate focus, and then the shot is...gone... It is after all, a consumer-grade lens, and it's built on value, not on ultimate performance or on ultimate optical quality.

The 300mm f/4 AF-S, the one that's been made for the last 15 years, is very sharp, light-ish in weight, not a speed-demon focusing, but it's no slouch either. However, fo a Nikon AF-S focusing lens, the 300/4 AF-S is NOT as fast as other AF-S lenses in terms of acquiring a new target--and it will, occasionally stutter. With the 1.4x converter added, the focusing gets very jittery and nervous.

The NEW, PF-E 300mm f/4 ($1,999) is exceptionally smaller than the older 300mm AF-S lens, is very light, and feels like a million bucks! I would LOVE the new 300 PF-E; the phase fresnel lens element design makes this about the same size as Canon's 135/2-L, or the Nikkor 24-70 AF-S G. I demo'd this lens a month ago, and damn--it is SWEET! Soooooooo compact for a 300!

If I were renting, I'd rent the 80-400 AF-S if I had to shoot from inside the oval.

 

[gckless]

I would rent the new 80-400 AF-S lens for the focusing speed it has, and the focal length range. The "old" 80-400 AF-D is a lens I have owned since it came out, and it is a slow, unreliable, erratic focuser much of the time. But from what I've read and seen from Thom Hogan, the new 80-400 AF-S is actually a VERY solid lens in optics, and in focusing, and he says it's very reliable for birds/nature, so, definitely it is a huge advance over the old, screw-driven focusing lens. I have a 70-300 VR-G...it's mostly okay, but it suffers from unreliable focusing; it misses, and FAILS to initiate focus quite often whenever distance changes are significant between the last focused distance and a new target at a different range; that is a well-known issue with the 70-300 VR,and has been mentioned here by me, and by two other TPFers, as well as being in the Hogan and Rockwell reviews...it's a well-known quirk/flaw/issue that the 70-300 VR-G suffers from. It doesn't always do this, but it does this often enough that you WILL miss shots because the damned lens will not initiate focus, and then the shot is...gone... It is after all, a consumer-grade lens, and it's built on value, not on ultimate performance or on ultimate optical quality.

The 300mm f/4 AF-S, the one that's been made for the last 15 years, is very sharp, light-ish in weight, not a speed-demon focusing, but it's no slouch either. However, fo a Nikon AF-S focusing lens, the 300/4 AF-S is NOT as fast as other AF-S lenses in terms of acquiring a new target--and it will, occasionally stutter. With the 1.4x converter added, the focusing gets very jittery and nervous.

The NEW, PF-E 300mm f/4 ($1,999) is exceptionally smaller than the older 300mm AF-S lens, is very light, and feels like a million bucks! I would LOVE the new 300 PF-E; the phase fresnel lens element design makes this about the same size as Canon's 135/2-L, or the Nikkor 24-70 AF-S G. I demo'd this lens a month ago, and damn--it is SWEET! Soooooooo compact for a 300!

If I were renting, I'd rent the 80-400 AF-S if I had to shoot from inside the oval.

Thanks man, seems that the 80-400mm is really popular. Reliable focusing is going to be very important, I may be trying to pan with these cars doing 180mph+. I don't think a 300mm prime is going to be optimal for me, I'm not sure where I'm going to get dropped on the track, and that length might not work.

Thanks all, I think I will be renting the 80-400mm for F1. Provided I can get them to let me break away!

 

[Braineack]

Good to know, maybe I was confusing the older model with newer.

I just went through a bunch of my panning shots on various tracks and even with 300mm lenses on crop bodies I'm typically shooting ~200mm.

I've panned with all shots of lenses on all sorts of tracks.

here's the 70-300mm VR at 250mm (FX):


#79 Panning by The Braineack, on Flickr


the 70-200 2.8 VC at 135mm (FX):


DSC_9571-57 by The Braineack, on Flickr


the 85mm 1.8G at 85mm (FX):


DSC_0253-92 by The Braineack, on Flickr

the 24-70 2.8 VC at 24mm (FX):


#601 Panning Wide by The Braineack, on Flickr

and the same spot at 70mm:


#601 Panning by The Braineack, on Flickr


the 55-300mm VR at 98mm (DX):


Panned Locost by The Braineack, on Flickr

the Canon 55-250mm at 225mm (DX):


Randy Pobst at Watkins Glen in KPAX #1 Porchse by The Braineack, on Flickr


the 150-600 VC at 200mm (FX):


Turner Motorsport No. 97 BMW Z4 by The Braineack, on Flickr



The 300 f/4 suggestion, i just threw out there cause I want the lens

 

[Solarflare]

Well, I dont do sports but I think I'd be pretty OK overall with my AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR.

Once used it on some kind of small car race (speeds I guess not above 60km/h) and it gave good results.

Panning though is not easy at all.

 

[astroNikon]

I was one of those TPFers that had issues with the 70-300 VR G lens
It had focus detection issues based on contrast.
My soccer shots normally are above 75%+ focus rate on a f/2.8 lens
on that 70-300 it was below 30%
switch back to (even a kit lens) and accuracy increased immediately.
The 70-300 liked a lot of contrast. And in soccer when the opposing team jerseys had far more contrast it was focusing on them whether they were 20 steps in front or behind, or the background walls/fences. In Single Focus point mode when you think it should focus on what you point it to.

On single subjects it was fine.
I sold it and never looked back.

 

[Braineack]

I never had that issue with my 70-300 VR. The 55-300 was SLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOWWWW and hunted like crazy, but it worked quite well with shooting cars.

300mm isn't all that long on FX, and the 70-200 got me close enough in most cases. I got the 150-600 to get to reach I needed for more wildlife stuff and sold the 70-300 as it was almost never touched.

I tried the long lens at the track and only ended up taking a few shots past 300mm, most tracks that I go to, you can spectate fairly close to. I'd assume F1 to be the case as well, so I don't really see the need for a really long lens, but the 80mm wide range to 400mm narrow is quite useful--so it might be a pretty good overall lens where you wouldn't need to reach for your 18-105 unless in the pits/paddock.

The hardest part about panning the 150-600 was the weight. I had it on a monopod most of the time just to support the weight when not shooting and it's just a lot to wield, where the 70-300 barely feels like a lens is even attached. I also like that it's VERY cheap and pretty decent optics for the price.

 

[astroNikon]

At soccer events the 150-600 is always on a monopod. I tried once without it .. 2nd half was painful and switched back to 80-200/2.8.
The 80-200/2.8 is handheld with no problems.
My 300/4 also handheld

But if you are not used to a 70-200 or 80-200/2.8 it can seem quite hefty and large.
the 150-600 is just bazooka sized.

 

[gckless]

I never had that issue with my 70-300 VR. The 55-300 was SLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOWWWW and hunted like crazy, but it worked quite well with shooting cars.

300mm isn't all that long on FX, and the 70-200 got me close enough in most cases. I got the 150-600 to get to reach I needed for more wildlife stuff and sold the 70-300 as it was almost never touched.

I tried the long lens at the track and only ended up taking a few shots past 300mm, most tracks that I go to, you can spectate fairly close to. I'd assume F1 to be the case as well, so I don't really see the need for a really long lens, but the 80mm wide range to 400mm narrow is quite useful--so it might be a pretty good overall lens where you wouldn't need to reach for your 18-105 unless in the pits/paddock.

The hardest part about panning the 150-600 was the weight. I had it on a monopod most of the time just to support the weight when not shooting and it's just a lot to wield, where the 70-300 barely feels like a lens is even attached. I also like that it's VERY cheap and pretty decent optics for the price.

And really I think that's the most attractive thing to me, the range. I don't know where I'll be on the track, so even if they do come close to me, I might not be able to capture them at the speed they're going. Might need to wait until they are a little farther.

In the pits/paddock, I have a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 I'll be using. I mentioned the 18-105 before because that's my longest lens otherwise. The Sigma has better optics overall, plus it's faster where I won't always have the best light.

I posted a few photos I did take with the 18-105mm here: Lone Star Le Mans 2015 | Photography Forum

 

[Braineack]

ha:

DSC_0239-6 by The Braineack, on Flickr

the 17-50 will be perfect for the paddock areas and then sounds like you have good options for a long. The 80-400 does seem to be a pretty nice lens from what I've read about it, its just $$$.